32 Comments

• 1. neocon  |  October 6th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

  It doesn’t pass the smell test does it?

  Is this the change everyone wants? More backroom deals.

• 2. neocon  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:03 pm

  “Dependence on government should never be used to build a political constituency”

  Great statement. Who said it?

• 3. cam  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:06 pm

  D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N
  Don’t talk about what is really on the minds of most Americans. Go with the slime.

  Its ok though. Its all you’ve got.

• 4. Mark Noonan  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:14 pm

  cam,

  Its really rather sad that your reaction to this is to think it merely campaign stuff - this is a direct threat to our democratic way of governance. The fact that as much as $200 million in illegal donations have been given to the Democratic nominee is a clear indicator that some very monied interests are determined to set the American political agenda. Who are they? What do they want? Do you care at all? Or is beating the GOP more important to you than anything else?

  With this fundraising scandal and the massive voter fraud being planned by the Democratic party what we are looking at is the largest political scandal not just in American history, but in human history. You should, as an American, be demanding accountability and that Obama come clean….

• 5. neocon  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pm

  cam,
  Tell me what Obama has other than a tax policy that gives just a small amount more to the middle class than McCain’s, yet punishes employers, which will result in more job losses. A trillion dollar spending program that he can’t pay for, especially considering his colleagues in the Congress failure to properly oversee fannie and freddie. A plan to surrender in Iraq, which will make our troops vulnerable, and NO plan to bring us any closer to energy independence.

  I am really curious as to why you so religiously and worshipfully support this man because all I see from your posts are vapid attacks against conservatives.

• 6. Mark Noonan  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:21 pm

  One thing these illegal donations make one think about - part of the Obama narrative is that he’s energised Americans as no politician has done in generations…proof of this couldn’t be found in voting (Hillary cleaned Obama’s clock in the big State votes), so Obama’s people pointed to the massive fundraising…but if $200 million is illegal, this is an indicator that enthusiasm for Obama is a mirage…

  The other day a poll came out in Minnesota alleging a 10 point lead for Al Franken over the GOP incumbent Senator - looking into the demographics, it seems that the Democratic voter ID in the poll sample was 16 percentage points higher than the GOP voter ID…and even with this massive an oversample of Democrats, Franken only came out with a 10 point lead (the reality is that Franken is about 10 points behind and will get clobbered on November 4th, even if the rest of the GOP goes down to defeat…there ain’t coat tails long enough to carry Franken over the finish line).

  Obama is clearly ahead in all polling - but it is a legitimate question to ask just what the voter ID’s were in the polls and, also, to ponder the fact that no one really has a clue how many self-identified Democrats and Republicans there are right now…Congressional Democrats haven’t exactly been making the Democratic party ragingly popular, and Obama’s alleged support is clearly a lot less than punditry has made it…

  The result in November could be astoundingly different from what anyone expects.

• 7. neocon  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:21 pm

  Mark,

  To these liberals, the end justifies the means and their idol worship of Obama blinds them to any unsavory or criminal activity. And these are the people that want change.

  Ironic isn’t it?

  btw, do you know who uttered that statement?

• 8. neocon  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

  The result in November could be astoundingly different from what anyone expects.

  I concur. I believe that the polls are skewed, and this is just an attempt to dampen the enthusiasm of conservatives in an effort to keep them home on Nov. 4.

• 9. Faceplant  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

  “Its really rather sad that your reaction to this is to think it merely campaign stuff - this is a direct threat to our democratic way of governance.”

  But the Jack Abramoff scandal was just an overblown liberal conspiracy? You guys really are completely dillusional.

  “The fact that as much as $200 million in illegal donations have been given to the Democratic nominee is a clear indicator that some very monied interests are determined to set the American political agenda. Who are they? What do they want? Do you care at all? Or is beating the GOP more important to you than anything else?”

  It’s pretty insulting that you and your party think the American people are this stupid.

  The McCain campaigns evidence is that Obama has gotten lots of donations of less than $200.00 from people. People who donate less than 200 dollars are not subject to disclosure laws. I gave less than 200 dollars. I’m not a foreigner.

  That and a newsmax article that grossly inflated the number of overseas contributions that Obama recieved. By the way, it is completely legal for a US citizen living abroad to donate to any political campaign.

  This is nothing but desperation. I can’t blame you guys. It’s to be expected from a party who’s party is rightly being thrown in the trash by the American people.

  “With this fundraising scandal and the massive voter fraud being planned by the Democratic party what we are looking at is the largest political scandal not just in American history, but in human history.”

  My god. It’s amazing how unhinged you become when you realize that the American people have completely rejected your entire destructive world view.

  Good riddance.

• 10. Mark Noonan  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

  Neocon,

  Can’t say that I do.

• 11. neocon  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:41 pm

  Face,
  If this is all above aboard, then why wont Obama reveal the sources as McCain has? And do you not find the two companies mentioned in Mark’s post questionable? I noticed you didn’t mention them.

  Mark,
  That comes from one our greatest Presidents, who had incredible vision.

  Ronald Wilson Reagan

• 12. Joe Bananas...in Pajamas  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

  You know that when every American hating leader, and every socialist regime, and the MSM, and Hollywood elites, and renegade terrorist sympathizers, and the likes of Irans Ahmadinejad, and every left leaning pole on this earth wants Obama to win, then it’s time to be worried about Obama.

  It does not take a genius to figure out where a lot of Obamas Campaign money is coming from.

• 13. Mark Noonan  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

  Face,

  Even more sad that you are being so willfully blind here - we don’t care that you donated, but we do care when more than 10k is donated by Mr. “Good Will”. Can’t you see it? Can’t you see, that is, that the loophole of the $200 donation is being used as a means to fund massive illegal donations to Obama? We need to know, before November 4th, just who has been donating - its no big thing to find out. The names are fake, but the credit cards have names attached to them…all Obama need do is release a full list of donors and allow everyone to go through it.

  Heck, if even $20 million is found to be illegal then we can put that down to over-enthusiastic supporters…but $200 million is clearly an attempt to purchase the White House…and you don’t care.

  Astounding.

• 14. Mark Noonan  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

  neocon,

  I should have known…

• 15. cam  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:44 pm

  Mark,
  You are jumping to conclusions. While a few examples have been given. It is not hard to comprehend that with so many contributions coming in for Obama that a few may have come from people who did not follow the law in donating properly. Of course, what eventually congeals has any resemblance to the picture being painted by the RNC it would be a problem for Obama. But other than having to give it back it is not likely to impact a potential Obama presidency unless someone where to prove intent. But first you will have to get the facts straight. The RNC is hardly an impartial source.

  Now regarding your concern about the American election system, I am, and have been very concerned, that large donations from moneyed interests, are eroding the principal of one man one vote. Further, the free movement of industry leaders back and forth between the industries they represent and the regulatory agencies that regulate these same industries certainly smacks of conflict of interrest.

  Despite the acceleration of these trends in the last 8 years you have had nothing to say about the dilution of democracy in America until the RNC makes unproven allegations.

• 16. neocon  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

  It’s amazing how unhinged you become when you realize that the American people have completely rejected your entire destructive world view. - Face

  Can you elaborate on this statement face? I mean the polls have gone back and forth with many still within the margin of error and Mark hardly seems unhinged, rather concerned about the integrity of the funding of our POTUS candidates. Can you not see the harm in allowing foreign interests assisting, and helping elect America’s leaders?

• 17. neocon  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:50 pm

  cam,

  I am still waiting for your response to tell us why you so religiously support a man who offers very little to move America forward.

• 18. Joe Bananas...in Pajamas  |  October 6th, 2008 at 8:57 pm

  But the Jack Abramoff scandal was just an overblown liberal conspiracy? You guys really are completely dillusional.

  It really surprises me how infantile some Liberals are when making comparisons.

  I shake my head, you people are really frightening.

• 19. Mark Noonan  |  October 6th, 2008 at 9:05 pm

  cam,

  Its not a few examples - but, I guess it doesn’t matter; you are convinced that Obama is the man of the hour and no amounts of facts will shake you from your unreasonable faith in him…we live in an age of lies and lies are much easier to deal with than the truth so, while the truth will out, we who adhere to truth have our work cut out for us to prevent lies from doing too much damage.

• 20. kimberly4victory  |  October 6th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

  Let me get this straight:

  1. Obama is getting illegal donations to his campaign.

  Liberals response: Not a problem!

  2. Obama is friendly with a terrorist, who did his deeds when Obama was 8 years old, however as early as 2005 said he didn’t do enough.

  Liberals response: Not a problem!

  3. Obama received money for his harvard education from a man who funded terrorism abroad.

  Liberals response: Not a problem!

  4. Obama has zero qualifications to be POTUS.

  Liberals response: Not a problem!

  5. Obama was a member and sat through sermons with his children for 20 years by a pastor who is anti-white and anti-American.

  Liberals response: Not a problem!

  I give up. There is no hope for these brainless robots.

  However, I do have hope for the undecided voters. Those who will look at Obama and wonder …

  Is he qualified to be POTUS?
  Does he have enough leadership skills to lead our country in a time of war?
  Does he have enough leadership skills to lead our country in this economic crisis?
  Does he want to take away my guns?
  Does he want to take away my freedom of speech?
  What is the Obama Camp?
  Is Michelle Obama proud of her country?
  What is Obama’s connection with Acorn?
  What is his relationship with Ayers?
  When did he meet Ayers?
  Who is Khalid?
  Where are his records from Columbia University?
  Where are his medical records?
  What is he hiding?
  Who is Barack Hussein Obama?

  They will pull the lever for the good of the country, not for the good of the party.

• 21. TalkingPoint  |  October 6th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

  Deleted - off topic.

• 22. neocon  |  October 6th, 2008 at 10:00 pm

  Fact,

  I will point out that those donors are named, and that a response from McCain should be forthcoming. If not, than you might have an issue. The questions that arise from Obama’s contributions are the fact that they are anonymous.

  Got it?

  Factcheck engages in tapdancing in 3….2…..1

• 23. yekepyt  |  October 6th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

  Is he qualified to be POTUS?
  Does he have enough leadership skills to lead our country in a time of war?
  Does he have enough leadership skills to lead our country in this economic crisis?
  Does he want to take away my guns?
  Does he want to take away my freedom of speech?
  What is the Obama Camp?
  Is Michelle Obama proud of her country?
  What is Obama’s connection with Acorn?
  What is his relationship with Ayers?
  When did he meet Ayers?
  Who is Khalid?
  Where are his records from Columbia University?
  Where are his medical records?
  What is he hiding?
  Who is Barack Hussein Obama?

  Oh. My. God.

  Is this all that McCain has?

  Putting retreads on the “manufactured scandals” that were debunked eons ago?

  “Fox News” Questions (e.g., “some say Obama beats his wife — and his campaign continues to refuse to address these allegations”)?

  I would be laughing at this panicked response if I wasn’t worried that some of the manufactured mud will stick.

• 24. yekepyt  |  October 6th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

  Dear McCain supporters: please continue to popularize the narrative that Obama consistently voted against Bush policies (that is, he voted with his own party), and that McCain consistently voted with his own party (that is, he voted for Bush policies).

  This is refreshing, and will help McCain. Keep up the negative campaigning; the poll numbers are reflecting your efforts!

• 25. cam  |  October 6th, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  neocon,
  It is not a religious support. Considering the options I have, Obama is the best choice. First and foremost I am a union man and believe in the rights of people to unionize. If an employer wants to leverage their employees they can supress wages. The only way for working people to gain leverage in this case is for employees to unionize and threaten to withhold their skills and labor needed for production.

  Keep in mind I did not come from a union background. In fact it was quite different. At one point I joined a union thinking I would be there for just a short time while my wife finished her education. Sometimes it doesn’t always work out like one plans. After 5 years I earned my journeyman card. Anyway, I don’t want to bore you with my life story.

  Bottom line here, I see the movement through all three branches to destroy unions and then the will of the working class. I see the root of the problem with people like George Bush who never worked a day in his life. Oh yeah sure he probably worked a little here or there but always with the understanding that because of his background he would always be taken care of one way or the other. Because of his lack of commonality with the common blue collar worker he sees the world differently. As such it is difficult for him to understand the union movement. Instead he shows disdain for it, something I found easy to do until I had the experience of living it.

  While I understrand the genesis of the anti-union sentiment, especially that found among the working class I have come to realize that without unions empolyers would treat labor as an expendable commodity that can be replaced and beaten down to the benefit of the employer. Fortunately I was lucky to be in a union where the membership was relatively savy about this relationship and led by people who generally had the best interest of its membership.

  I have come to the realization that without a decent wage employees do not have the ability to become educated on the issues that matter to them. Further, if the vision of some employers that features economic slavery for all comes to pass most of us will no longer have the werewithall to participate in the great American experiment. If this happens the version of American oligarchy will only accelerate. At that point nothing will matter. All of the concern for life that is predominant on the right, at least in the form taken, will be shed once those in power realize they no longer need to right to life movement to get elected.

  Now, this is not a complete argument. There are a lot of gaps here. But, seriously, I do not have the time to write a book. Most of my writing on this blog is squeezed inbetween work and finishing the house I have been building over 2 years now. But I enjoy the exchanges I have with you and the many other people who comment on this blog even though we seem to have quite a substantial disagreement on most topics.

• 26. neocon  |  October 6th, 2008 at 10:31 pm

  cam,

  Thanks, but you did not mention one thing that you like about Obama, instead you listed a rather communist view of the world.

  How long do you suppose corporations would survive without talented labor? Do you believe that corporations should be able to pay laborers commensurate with their talents and efforts they bring, or should all laborers be paid the same regardless of effort and talent?

  As someone who has employed many people in the past, I have always rewarded those who contributed more in effort and talent, and it was always beneficial to the companies growth which allowed me to expand and employ more. Unions dis-incentivize that philosophy and ultimately create for a division in management and labor which hurts the overall growth of the company.

  But enough of my economic views. What I really wanted to know is what you like about Obama. You still haven’t answered that.

• 27. js  |  October 6th, 2008 at 10:41 pm

  id like him in a black suit that has white stripes running horizontally across it from top to bottem…does that count?

• 28. phnx  |  October 6th, 2008 at 11:01 pm

  Maybe this is one of the reasons he doesn’t want his State Senate records released:

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_el_pr/obama_legislative_grants

• 29. cam  |  October 6th, 2008 at 11:34 pm

  neocon,
  My view is not communistic. Communism relys on planned economies. My view allows labor to freely associate in an orgainized manner to allow them to benefit from their common interests. While the Bush administration has used the full force of the government to bear against organized labor an Obama administration would not. While Bush has ignored labor law, Obama would not. While Bush administration policies and appointments of anti labor judges have eroded the labor movement Obama’s approach will be quite different.

  You are correct that corporations need talented labor to survive. Yet there is nothing in that equation to require loyalty on the part of those same corporations. The human condition predicts that all people who use their physical and yes mental abilities will eventually hit a peak and then decline. The free market has no way to humanely address this issue. People will at times need health care. The free market has no answer for this.

  At the start of the Industrial Revolution we saw what a cruel world a true free market becomes. Read Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” or John Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath” or In Dubious Battle”

  Now, like all of the chicken hawks who supported the war on Iraq, most of the free market people walked up to oblivion and then turned back. George Bush looked more like a Socaialist than just about any other President we have ever had. When he was forced to chose between between the free market and a planned economy he chose the latter. Not much a conviction.

  Just currious, what area have you been an employer. And yes, people should have incentives to be productive whether through talent or effort.

  I worked in construction and there was no reward for inferior productivity. After joining the union I always worked union and you were always expected to work your ass off. The saying I remember was assholes and elbows.

• 30. What?  |  October 7th, 2008 at 12:38 am

  Again,
  You have to show Obama knowingly accepted the illegal donations. There is no evidence the campaign has. The campaign is returning the money after it discovers the donations are from potentially illegal sources.

  The Obama campaign is doing what it should be doing. That it has not done so fast enough is not illegal. The very fact it is returning the money demonstrates it is not accepting the suspicious donations.

  Also, I don’t think anonymous donations are forbidden. Correct me if I am wrong. If I am right, Obama can keep the money (up tothe legal limit) if he has no evidence it came from an illegal source.

  Really, you should keep trying the Bill Ayers stuff. I think that is a better bet than this campaign finance one. Better yet, you candidate (and mine) should come out and offer concrete solutions to a collapsing economy. Wishful thinking on my part.

• 31. FactCheck  |  October 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am

  Deleted - off topic.

  Boy, did I call it!

  I pointed out that while the RNC is bitching about Obama to the FEC, the FEC is actually question the McCain campaign. I then threw some of Mark’s hysterical language back at him to illustrate his hypocrisy on the matter. So what does he do? He takes the only path that would be even *more* hypocritical, and he deletes the post

  Mark Noonan: Never anything but the utmost coward. How does it feel to be such a moral and intellectual weakling, Mark?

• 32. phnx  |  October 7th, 2008 at 5:17 pm

  Bulletin Bulletin Bulletin:

  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93LPR783&show_article=1&lst=1

  For anyone tried and convicted from ACORN, you can expect Presidential Pardons from President Obama. His General Amnesty for all participants in vote fraud will be is first act as President.